Britannia Parking PCN - Rock Street, OL1 3UH

CBA12

I took my two year old child to the cinema and parked at Rock Street. I took a photo of the pay by phone code intending to pay for parking while we rushed to the cinema. Unfortunately the app was not loading properly on my phone and with the distraction of getting a young child settled I did not complete the payment at that time.

When we returned to the car I paid at the machine to cover the parking cost.

Despite this I later received a PCN dated 22.11.2025 stating Failed to make a valid payment.

I appealed within 28 days of the initial correspondence and submitted my appeal via Britannia’s website. I provided evidence of the pay and display ticket purchased on 18.10.2025 showing payment made at 16.40 and expiry at 18.39.

My appeal email stated the following.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re PCN number: A7210083

I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

In order to resolve the dispute a copy of the parking ticket purchased on the 18.10.2025 has been attached.  

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite requesting this information I was not provided with the evidence requested in particular the record of payments made.




[Image removed by Forum Team]

[Image removed by Forum Team]

CBA12

Britannia  Parking responded on 28.11.2025 and 02.01.2026. They have provided me with POPLA verification code.

I have written any appeal to POPLA could I get some feedback please.  

1. The operator has failed to clearly establish the alleged contravention

The Parking Charge was first issued on the basis of Failed to make a valid payment. However in the rejection letter dated 02.01.2026 the operator instead states that the ticket purchased had expired.

These are not the same allegation. The operator has changed the basis of the charge during the appeal process and has failed to clearly identify what contractual term was allegedly breached.

The operator has not clearly explained:

what specific parking term was breached
when the breach is said to have occurred
how this results in a one hundred pound charge

This inconsistency undermines the reliability of the claim.

2. Proof of payment was provided and has not been properly considered

Evidence of a valid Pay and Display ticket was provided with the initial appeal. The ticket shows:

the correct vehicle registration
the correct location
payment made on the date in question

The operator has not disputed that payment was made nor provided any evidence from its own payment records to show that the ticket was invalid rejected or non compliant.

The burden of proof remains with the operator. In the absence of clear evidence explaining why a valid payment does not satisfy the parking terms the charge cannot be upheld.

3. ANPR timestamps do not demonstrate the period of parking

The operator relies solely on ANPR entry and exit timestamps. These only record vehicle movement past cameras and do not show:

the actual period the vehicle was parked
when the driver read the terms
when payment was made
whether time was spent queuing or manoeuvring

ANPR timestamps do not equate to the parking period. The operator has failed to demonstrate how this data alone proves a contractual breach.

4. BPA Code of Practice not correctly applied

The operator refers to a ten minute grace period at the end of parking. However the BPA Code of Practice also requires a consideration period at the start of parking to allow drivers time to read signage understand the terms and make payment.

The operator has not demonstrated:

what consideration period applies at this site
where this is communicated on signage
that immediate payment on arrival is a contractual requirement

No evidence has been provided to show that delayed payment results in a one hundred pound charge.

5. Inadequate signage and failure to prove contractual terms

The operator asserts that signage is compliant but has failed to provide:

clear close up photographs of signage in place
evidence that key terms including payment timing and the charge amount were prominently displayed
a site plan showing sign locations

Without clear and prominent signage no contract capable of enforcement can be formed.

6. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator has not produced a contemporaneous unredacted contract with the landowner authorising:

management of parking at this site
issuing parking charges
pursuing charges in their own name

The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice.

7. The charge is disproportionate

Even if a minor technical issue were alleged which is denied a one hundred pound charge where payment was made is disproportionate. The operator has failed to demonstrate any legitimate interest or commercial justification for such a charge in these circumstances.

Conclusion

The operator has failed to:

clearly define the alleged breach
properly consider proof of payment
demonstrate the parking period
evidence compliant signage
prove landowner authority

For these reasons the appeal should be allowed and the Parking Charge Notice cancelled.

 

Coupon-mad

But what's the reason for PCN? Was £1.90 not enough to cover your entire stay, from arrival?

CBA12

I intended to pay for parking before leaving the car park and chose to use the Pay by Phone app. Unfortunately, when I opened the app it required an update, which delayed the payment process. By the time the update had completed, we were running late for the cinema and I genuinely forgot to return to complete the payment immediately.

As soon as I returned to the car park, I paid for the parking, believing this would resolve the issue. I later realised that this car park requires payment to be made within the first 10 minutes, as state in one of Britannia letters. 

Coupon-mad

No, I know that bit.

But you can't get a PCN for that any more. That 'pay within' rule was banned last year.

I ask again:

Was £1.90 not enough to cover your entire stay, from arrival? The rejection letter will tell you.

CBA12

ah got yea! I paid for 2 hours from 16:40 to 18:39. The PCN states I parked for 2 hours and 19minutes from 14:23 to 16:42. I couldn't remember what time I entered to be honest. Now they want £100 for 19 minutes. 

Coupon-mad

CBA12 said:

ah got yea! I paid for 2 hours from 16:40 to 18:39. The PCN states I parked for 2 hours and 19minutes from 14:23 to 16:42. I couldn't remember what time I entered to be honest. Now they want £100 for 19 minutes. 

Well your payment had expired. You should have covered yourself and paid for 3 hours. None of this (your draft above) will win at POPLA so the advice is not to bother.

No paying though. These cases are best using the proper dispute resolution: small claims, if they try. Ignore all the DRA letters this year, trying to 'extort from motorists' the £170 double recovery scam. 

Still unsure that we are right about ignoring?

Just click on the words underneath the little red 'MSE link' in the small 'Parking Ticket Appeals' banner at the top of this page which leads to the MSE Guide to fight PCNs.

Same info is shown in both this forum and in that Guide, as regards the debt recovery letters being a futile stage and ignoring these demands being risk-free as long as you don't miss or ignore a Court Claim (easy to defend). Consistent advice here is not just from random strangers.

The MSE Guide is official 'Martin Lewis backed' advice. Read it now. Relax!

See you back here if ever you get a Claim Form. Obviously you must tell Britannia and their debt crawlers, if you move house.

James_Poisson

So you never paid for the actual period the vehicle was on site.

You paid for two hours when you actually stayed two hours nineteen minutes, why on earth didn't you over pay to cover the period at least that would have plugged the time on site issue. 

As it is they can claim two T&C clauses broken the main one being insufficient payment, POPLA will be a total waste of time.

They will never claim you owe £100 for 19 minutes they want £100 in damages because you broke the commercial contract you entered in to.

I would follow C_Ms advice.

CBA12

Hi All, I have received a small claims summons from BW Legal dated 02/06/2026. I submitted the Acknowledgement of Service on MCOL today (14/06/2026). I know it states 5 days after the issue date on the newbie thread however, I was on holiday. I still have until 04 July 2026 to submit my defence.

For reference, under the Particulars of Claims it states:

I have read the Defence Template and intend to proceed using it, with the addition of my own facts section. Please see my proposed addition in bold below. Please if anyone could provide feedback it would be much appreciated.

Defence

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3.The Defendant attempted to pay for parking using the PayByPhone application immediately after parking the vehicle and whilst walking to a pre-planned family activity with their child. However, the application did not function correctly and repeatedly reloaded, preventing the payment from being completed.

4.The Defendant made genuine efforts to pay for parking and had no intention of avoiding payment. The failure to make payment at the start of the parking period was due to technical difficulties with the PayByPhone application, which were outside the Defendant's control.

5.Upon returning to the vehicle, the Defendant made payment using the payment machine on site, having been unable to complete payment through the PayByPhone application earlier. The Defendant purchased two hours of parking, demonstrating a clear intention to pay for the parking period and comply with the terms and conditions of the car park.

6.The Particulars of Claim allege that the vehicle was parked from 14:23 until 16:42, a total stay of 2 hours and 19 minutes. The Defendant paid for two hours of parking and submits that the alleged excess period of 19 minutes should be considered in the context of the Defendant's genuine attempts to pay, the technical difficulties encountered with the payment application, and the subsequent payment made upon returning to the vehicle.

7. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

8. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

9. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

10. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

11. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

12. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

13. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Coupon-mad

You haven't had a Summons! 🙂

Needs to be shorter so I'd remove 4 & 6.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 02/06/26 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 06/07/26